Vickie Chapman parliamentary Kangaroo Island conflict investigation cost taxpayers $140k

Taxpayers forked out a hefty $140,000 for the parliamentary inquiry into Vickie Chapman’s Kangaroo Island conflict investigation.

Taxpayers were billed more than $140,000 for a parliamentary committee inquiry into former attorney-general Vickie Chapman that was at odds with an official investigation.

An Ombudsman inquiry cleared the former deputy premier earlier this month of any conflict of interest in a Kangaroo Island development that she vetoed.

But that inquiry was in stark contrast to the parliamentary select committee’s findings that sparked a historic vote of no confidence and Ms Chapman standing down as deputy premier and attorney-general.

In a statement to state parliament’s lower house late on Thursday, independent speaker Dan Cregan, revealed the MPs’ inquiry cost at least $142,974.74.

He told parliament $71,474 was for solicitors’ fees, which included $252.64 for incidental expenses.

Mr Cregan did not name the firm, but the committee’s 324-page report said solicitors LK Law, formerly Lipman Karas, instructed barrister Rachael Gray QC.

Parliament heard the silk, as counsel assisting, received $71,500 in fees for work that included eight days of public hearings, which the opposition described in parliament as a “kangaroo court”.

Ms Gray is a highly regarded barrister with almost 30 years experience, who was made a senior counsel in 2018 and has appeared in several Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiries for ministers.

Legal and government sources say she is being considered for a spot on the Supreme Court bench.

Vickie Chapman leaves her Tusmore home. Picture: Brenton Edwards

Ms Gray declined to comment as did Mr Creegan and LK Law principal Skip Lipman.

Ombudsman Wayne Lines launched his separate investigation last November after the committee’s findings were referred to him by its chairwoman, Labor MP Andrea Michaels.

Ms Michaels, now a cabinet minister, has appointed the committee’s research officer to her ministerial office.

The parliamentary inquiry, which ruled Ms Chapman had a conflict of interest, was triggered in the wake of criticism of a rejected bid to build a port facility at Smith Bay to ship timber.

In his final report Mr Lines said she did not have a conflict of interest – either actual, potential or perceived – when she rejected the seaport near property she owns.

It also found Ms Chapman had committed no breach of the ministerial code. Ms Chapman also denied the claims.

A government spokesman said it was an “important committee which examined serious matters relating to Ms Chapman’s conduct and heard damning evidence from a number of witnesses”.

He said it supported a finding that Ms Chapman had misled parliament.

The government has previously said it was common for there to be conflicting legal opinions on an issue.